I gave my opinion Peter. If you and Dave are not able to understand it, then
you can just keep attempting (poorly) to insult me. Didn't you say something
about this previously? I seem to recall you demanding that I not insult LP
by calling her a him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

Not at all. I said that it should be somewhere between 10 and 50
percent.
How is that "going to water"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I
was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers
should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's
10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.


Hell, Dave, I was trying to get the simplest possible answer to see if
Jon actually had any opinions at all other than some vague feeling that
the rich weren't paying their fair share. Given that as a starting
point, it might be possible to work up to something more abstract. But
no. Waste of time as per. Arguing with Joe is more productive. At least
he *has* opinions he's prepared to defend. A bit like a dog walking on
hind legs to be true, but better than a dog that can't even limp.

Lost interest now - unproductive. The summary seems to be that Jon
favours a progressive tax but can't express this clearly, nor can he
figure out what the breaks should be, except he's convinced the rich
aren't paying their fair share. I've told him that they are, but he
seems to doubt me. Shrug.

PDW

"DSK" wrote in message

wealth itself (in it's tremendously myriad forms)

"Myriad," as you've used it, is synonymous with *countless.* How can one
modify 'countless?'

Less countless? More countless? Partly countless?

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

Next up is "Bolton."

Max

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't work like that here... if
you make improvements or the market value increases for whatever reason,
your property taxes go up. If you think I like this, you'd be wrong. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?

Actually this may be one of the differences between the USA and
Australia. The short answer is, no, or not in the same way. I pay local
govt taxes based on the unimproved capital value of my property. These
are flat rate and are used to fund services such as roads, garbage
collection, libraries etc. There are discounts for people on pensions.
I pay no taxes on improvements to the place. In some states you also
pay land tax if it's not used for farming or is your principal place of
residence. I was horrified when a friend of mine in Fla told me his tax
assessment would go up if he put in a concrete slab instead of crushed
gravel workshop floor. We don't have that sort of crap.

There are no property taxes on boats etc so the crap you guys go thru
picking the cheapest state to keep a boat in is a bit of a joke really.
I hope our clowns never figure that one out.

PDW

Not at all necessarily. The contents of the memo are what I'm talking about.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:22:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

He just proved it by the leak of his self-serving CYA
memo.

So leaks to the press of internal agency documents and discussions are a
Bad
Thing?

wealth itself (in it's tremendously myriad forms)


Maxprop wrote:
"Myriad," as you've used it, is synonymous with *countless.* How can one
modify 'countless?'


Ah, let me count the ways.


Less countless? More countless? Partly countless?


Double-plus countless.

Actually, you are not quite correct. "Myriad" means widely
varying in type, form, size, or other characteristic; also
very numerous. I like the sound of it better than Carl
Sagan's "Millie-yons and millie-yons."

DSK

... Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system


Why make that assumption?


Dave wrote:
I make that assumption based on many years of observing Congress critters
and other govmint employees.

I don't disagree with that assumption, but it is unsound
logic to throw assumption on top of assumption.

It's very interesting that you and Maxprop are lining up in
favor of the paternalist & socialistic European economic
structures. Are you both still calling yourself "conservative"?

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:52:18 -0500, DSK said:

It's very interesting that you and Maxprop are lining up in
favor of the paternalist & socialistic European economic
structures. Are you both still calling yourself "conservative"?

I don't think I lined up in favor of anything. I simply pointed out that if
you want to encourage savings and capital formation (note: I did not say I
or anyone else _does_ want to encourage savings and capital formation), then
the way to do that is to tax consumption. Duh!

VAT does have, in addition to the problem I identified earlier, the problem
that increases in the tax rate may be less visible to the ultimate payer
than is the income tax. At least when you have to file an income tax return
each year you see how much you're handing over to the govmint. Of course
that notion may also be approaching quaint as we are nearly at the point
where 50% of Americans pay no income tax.


I have a serious question to which I should welcome an honest reply from a
consumption tax proponent. Are you game?

My question is this: There is a large group of people who have paid income
taxes on their earnings their entire lives. Some have wisely invested some
of the remaining money and look forward to spending their savings in their
retirement years without having to pay taxes on their money twice. So do you
think it's equitable, when an individual has saved post-tax dollars and now
has a million dollars, for example, to spend in his retirement years to have
the government change the system mid-stream and take away a large percentage
of his net worth in the form of a consumption tax? Given a twenty percent
consumption tax and a man who intents to spend his million before he dies,
his million has shrunk to eight hundred thousand.

Do you consider this double jeopardy?

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Yup.. he's toast... all the rats deserting the ship.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

Next up is "Bolton."

Max

I didn't say it wasn't fair. I said I didn't like it. And, it's not a matter
of unimproved vs. improved, rather it's a matter of the high tide lifting
all boats... err, houses, err, whatever.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:39:44 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't work like that here... if
you make improvements or the market value increases for whatever reason,
your property taxes go up. If you think I like this, you'd be wrong. :-)

Hey, Jon, but it's "fair." After all, if your property is improved you
must
have more wealth than the guy next door whose property is unimproved. And
we
know from Charlie that that means you should pay more tax.